This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
The confident answers on New subcategory and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
Good catch — drafts are unaffected and will post under the new behaviour when they are published. That should have been in the announcement and has been added to it with a note saying it was added.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
Answering the question post #90 raises rather than the one it answers.
New subcategory is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
Where I have landed on New subcategory, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
Adding the measurement that post #96 says would settle it.
Speaking only to New subcategory as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
Post #94 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
I had written a reply contradicting post #98 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Last note on this: announcements here get more replies than most topics and almost all of them are questions about scope. That is a hint about what an announcement should lead with.
Post #98 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Adding a reference point for New subcategory. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
Where I part company with post #100, and it is a narrow parting.
The failure mode on New subcategory is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Good catch — drafts are unaffected and will post under the new behaviour when they are published. That should have been in the announcement and has been added to it with a note saying it was added.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
The most useful reply I ever got about New subcategory was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
RSS: if you prefer to receive announcements by feed rather than visiting the site, RSS is available for this subcategory.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
Confirming post #110 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The useful distinction on New subcategory is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Post #115 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
On New subcategory, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Source for the New subcategory figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
Post #115 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Worth separating New subcategory as a question about the compound from New subcategory as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Housekeeping announcement. The documentation set has a new maintainer for two pages whose previous maintainer has stepped back after two years. Both pages have been reviewed at handover rather than assumed current.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.